"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...
NOYB,
I am sure you noticed, but these LiberalTrash Mouthbreathers very rarely
read any of the articles they cut and paste. If they do read them, they
don't have the ability to understand what they are reading.

I know. That's why I'm helping them out.

Here's the first paragraph of the "new" report:

"Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq

ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility

of the evacuation of WMD-related material

from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent

several months examining documents, interviewing

former Iraqi offi cials, examining previous intelligence

reports, and conducting some site investigations. The

declining security situation limited and finally halted

this investigation. The results remain inconclusive,

but further investigation may be undertaken when

circumstances on the ground improve."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's certainly a far cry from the headlines that the liberal press are
firing off!



Read the report yourself:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...04/addenda.pdf

NOYB,

I can just see the Hanson Bros. now claiming the CIA report is biased. If
you want to know the truth it is important that we rely on the Liberal News
to interpret the information for us.


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...
NOYB,
I am sure you noticed, but these LiberalTrash Mouthbreathers very rarely
read any of the articles they cut and paste. If they do read them, they
don't have the ability to understand what they are reading.

I know. That's why I'm helping them out.

Here's the first paragraph of the "new" report:

"Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq

ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility

of the evacuation of WMD-related material

from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent

several months examining documents, interviewing

former Iraqi offi cials, examining previous intelligence

reports, and conducting some site investigations. The

declining security situation limited and finally halted

this investigation. The results remain inconclusive,

but further investigation may be undertaken when

circumstances on the ground improve."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's certainly a far cry from the headlines that the liberal press are
firing off!



Read the report yourself:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_...04/addenda.pdf

Mo

"The investigation centered on the possibility that

WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious

from other sections of the Comprehensive Report,

Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of

military and other material to Iraq in contravention

of the UN sanctions. This indicated a fl exibility with

respect to international law and a strong willingness

to work with Iraq-at least when there was considerable

profi t for those involved. Whether Syria received

military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other

reasons has yet to be determined."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then why is mainstream media overstating the conclusions of the report and
stating it as "conclusive evidence"?

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Mo

"The investigation centered on the possibility that

WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious

from other sections of the Comprehensive Report,

Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of

military and other material to Iraq in contravention

of the UN sanctions. This indicated a fl exibility with

respect to international law and a strong willingness

to work with Iraq-at least when there was considerable

profi t for those involved. Whether Syria received

military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other

reasons has yet to be determined."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then why is mainstream media overstating the conclusions of the report and
stating it as "conclusive evidence"?


And some mo
"There was evidence

of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated

by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received

information about movement of material out of Iraq,

including the possibility that WMD was involved. In

the judgment of the working group, these reports were

sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.

ISG was unable to complete its investigation and

is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was

evacuated to Syria before the war."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time so
you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where they
were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to rattle his
sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about these
weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to move
the materials elsewhere.

Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This is
true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes
could have dealt with at least some of the locations.

Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't
want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles
have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to
use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were.

3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them
in.

So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president
can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether
soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time
so you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where
they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to
rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about
these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to
move the materials elsewhere.




Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this
newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This
is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes
could have dealt with at least some of the locations.


Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should provide
you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?

Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't
want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles
have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to
use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were.

Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions.
Why launch cruise missiles?
So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people
*think* that you're actually doing something?



3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them
in.

Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave the
UN a chance to
establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance.



So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president
can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether
soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam
sneak the WMD from his country to Syria.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...



Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should
provide
you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?



Here's a comprehensive listing of what the administration DID say........

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam

I like this one, my how the story changed.........

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He
has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass
destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his
neighbors."

"John A" wrote in message
.com...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...



Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should
provide
you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?



Here's a comprehensive listing of what the administration DID say........

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam

I like this one, my how the story changed.........

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He
has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of
mass
destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his
neighbors."




No references to any of the statements they "quote"

How convenient.

www.rotten.com What a reliable source for news. LMAO.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time
so you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where
they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to
rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about
these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time
to move the materials elsewhere.




Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this
newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This
is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air
strikes could have dealt with at least some of the locations.


Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should
provide you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?

OK. I generalized. Try this: At the moment president Rove said he knew where
they were, he did not move. Doesn't matter when he said it, really.



Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country
didn't want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise
missiles have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did
not want to use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the
WMDs were.

Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions.
Why launch cruise missiles?
So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people
*think* that you're actually doing something?

Why launch? Because according to comments from Colin Powell, who ought to
know what he's talking about, ****SOME**** of the weapons could have been
safely destroyed via air strikes, while others were better dealt with more
carefully, "by hand", if you will. But, president Rove chose to do nothing.



3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well
before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in
October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent
them in.

Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave
the UN a chance to
establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance.

Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with
absolutely no consideration for our image in the world?



So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit
there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled
out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your
president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much
whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam
sneak the WMD from his country to Syria.

Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers waiting
for us?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!?

"possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!?



That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!!

I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I
explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time
so you can refer to it when necessary.

Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his
boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where
they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to
rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything
about these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of
time to move the materials elsewhere.




Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this
newsgroup.

1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This
is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air
strikes could have dealt with at least some of the locations.


Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion.
If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should
provide you with the
necessary references to support your claim, right?

OK. I generalized. Try this: At the moment president Rove said he knew
where they were, he did not move. Doesn't matter when he said it, really.



Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have
used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian
populations.

2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country
didn't want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise
missiles have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did
not want to use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the
WMDs were.

Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions.
Why launch cruise missiles?
So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people
*think* that you're actually doing something?

Why launch? Because according to comments from Colin Powell, who ought to
know what he's talking about, ****SOME**** of the weapons could have been
safely destroyed via air strikes, while others were better dealt with more
carefully, "by hand", if you will. But, president Rove chose to do
nothing.



3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could
appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up
well before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to
go in October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've
sent them in.

Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave
the UN a chance to
establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance.

Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with
absolutely no consideration for our image in the world?

Because the administration gave the French and Russians a chance to atone
for their sins of sending banned arms to Saddam. As the Oil-for-food
scandal unfurled, it became evident that neither of those two countries
would have budged and inch no matter what we negotiated.




So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them
gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll
admit there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be
smuggled out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since
your president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared
much whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons.

I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out:
We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping
Saddam sneak the WMD from his country to Syria.

Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers
waiting for us?

No. And I never said that. But there were plenty of Russian soldiers
elsewhere in the world that we didn't want to drag into our fight in Iraq.